Homeless Children: Risk and

ResilienceStacy M. Deck, PhD, MSSW

Spalding University School of Social WorkIn collaboration with

Coalition for the Homeless, Jefferson County Public Schools, and Metropolitan Housing Coalition

This research was supported by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Grant H21619RG.

Please do not cite or distribute without permission from the presenter.

Presentation Outline• Definitions and background• Literature review• Research questions• Method• Results• Discussion/implications• Limitations and next steps• Questions and discussion of implications

Homelessness Defined• ED:

o lack fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence

o sharing housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship or similar reason

• HUD:o lack fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime

residenceo will imminently lose primary nighttime

residence (i.e., within 14 days)

Federal Register, 2011; U.S. Congress, 2009

Scope of Problem: U.S.• ~2.5 million children in 2013, or 1 in 30 –

54% since 2010• Point-in-time 2014:

o 23% of homeless individuals < 18 years oldo # homeless persons in families since 2014o BUT other subgroups more

• 1.3 million enrolled in public schools (2012-13)o 75% doubled upo 16% in shelterso 6% in hotel/motelo 3% unshelteredBassuk, DeCandia, Beach & Berman, 2014; Henry, Cortes, Shivji & Buck,

2014; U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2015

Scope of Problem: KY• 2012-13: 66,818 homeless children (age 0-

17)o KY #50 / 50 on ratio of homeless children to

children in general population• 2013 state performance evaluation

o KY #42 / 50 on composite indicator:• Extent of child homelessness• Child well-being• Child homelessness risk• State policy/planning efforts

• 2014-15: 27,884 homeless students (10.3% since 2012-13)

Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach & Berman, 2014; KY Department of Education, 2015

Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS)

• 2014-15: 6,483 homeless students• 2009 Report: “Where Do You Live?

Louisville's Homeless Children and the Affordable Housing Crisis”o Steep post-recession rise in homeless childreno Half doubled upo 44% changed schools 1+ timeso 29% absent 10+% of school year (vs. 18%

overall)o 37% of homeless 3rd graders proficient in reading

(vs. 67% overall)KY Department of Education, 2015; Salley & Ellers, 2009

What Leads to Family Homelessness?

• Inadequate supply of affordable housing

• Economic insecurity• Domestic violence• Absence/inconsistency of social

support

Aratani, 2009

What Results From Family Homelessness?• Food insecurity• Poorer physical health• Poorer mental health• Social problems• Exposure to violence, abuse, trauma• Cumulative adversity• Diminished educational outcomes

Aratani, 2009; Moore, 2013

Effects of Homelessness on School Outcomes• Mixed results

• Some overlap with effects of poverty• Effects may include:

o Increased school mobilityo Absenteeismo Lower test scores/academic achievemento Grade retentiono Emotional & behavioral problemso Social isolation

Bowman, Dukes & Moore, 2012; Buckner, 2008; Miller, 2011; Samuels, Shinn & Buckner, 2010

Continuum of Risk

General population

Poor

Homeless

Masten, Miliotis, Graham-Bermann, Ramirez & Neemann, 1993; see also Bowman, Dukes & Moore, 2012; Miller, 2011; Samuels, Shinn & Buckner, 2010

Co-Occurring Factors• Often, but not always:

o Residential & school instabilityo Birth risks, poor nutrition, lead exposureo Maternal risk factorso Domestic and/or neighborhood violenceo Health issueso Isolation/separation from significant adults

• Does homelessness have a unique effect?

Brumley, Fantuzzo, Perlman & Zager, 2015; Fantuzzo, LeBoeuf, Brumley & Perlman, 2013; Herbers, Cutili, Monn, Narayan & Masten, 2014; Herbers et al., 2012; Masten et al., 2014; Obradović et al., 2009

Other Factors to Consider

• Effects of homelessness may be moderated by: o Ageo Setting o Length of exposure/number of episodeso Executive functioningo Cognitive skillso Quality of parentingo Adult support

• Both risk and resilience are observedBowman, Dukes & Moore, 2012; Miller, 2011

Contextual FactorsCommunitySchool

Peer Group Neighborhood

Family

*Also, consider age, developmental stage & reason for move.

Anderson, Leventhal, Newman & Dupéré, 2014; Rumberger, 2015; Theodos, Coulton & Budde, 2014

Differences Between & Within Groups

Canfield, Nolan, Harley, Hardy& Elliott, 2015; Danesco & Holden, 1998; Miller, 2011; Miller, 2015

Revisiting the Continuum of Risk

General population

Poor

Homeless

Doubled UpSheltered

Different experience

s or the same?

Qualitative DifferencesDoubled Up Sheltered

• Dignity• Possibly a unified

residence• Fewer social &

educational opportunities

• “Unstable, discouraging & disconnected”

• Helped to develop resource-rich networks

• Guidance • Support• Restrictive• Lack privacy

Hallett, 2012; Miller, 2015; Pavlakis, 2014

“Most of what is known about homeless children derives from studies of children in families sampled at homeless shelters… More rarely, there is information about these children after they are re-housed, or from school records, before they became homeless.”

Samuels, Shinn & Buckner, 2010

Research Questions1. Do sheltered, doubled-up and poor but housed

students differ with respect to school mobility?2. Do sheltered, doubled-up and poor but housed

students differ with respect to school attendance?

3. Do sheltered, doubled-up and poor but housed students differ with respect to reading achievement?

4. Do sheltered, doubled-up and poor but housed students differ with respect to math achievement?

Participants• Quasi-experimental, comparison group

design• Convenience sample of sheltered

children• 2 matched comparison groups

o Doubled upo Poor, but not homeless

Matched Study GroupsSheltered between 4/2011 & 1/2012

Doubled Up in 2010-11

Poor, but not homeless in 2010-11

4949

49Source of data for sheltered children: Family Options Study – Abt Associates (Gubits et al., 2015); source of data for comparison groups: Jefferson County Public Schools

Sample Characteristics• 55.1% female• 73.5% black/biracial, 24.5% white,

2.0% Hispanic• Age: 3-year-old preschool to 8th grade• 16.3% with disability (mild mental,

health impairment, functional mental, learning)

• 100% free lunch-eligible

School Outcome Measures

• School mobility: # schools attended in 2012-13

• School attendance: % of days attended in 2012-13

• K-Prep test scores in 2012-13:oReadingoMathematics

Data AnalysisTests for group differences in school outcomes:• School mobility, attendance: Kruskal-

Wallace one-way analysis of variance by rankso Dunn’s post-hoc tests with Bonferroni

correction• Reading, math proficiency: Chi-square

analysis

Number of Schools Attended in 2012-13

Group Mean Range % Attending> 4 Schools

Sheltered (N=49) 1.6 1-5 6.1%

Doubled Up (N=49) 1.1 1-3 0.0%

Poor (N=49) 1.2 1-3 0.0%

All (N=147) 1.3 1-5 2.0%

School mobility for the sheltered group was significantly greater than for each of the other two groups; H(2)=15.057, p=.001.

School Attendance in 2012-13

Group Mean RangeAverage

Days Absent

Sheltered (N=49) 89.3%

63-100% 19

Doubled Up (N=49) 93.7%

41-100% 11

Poor (N=49) 95.8%

85-100% 7

All (N=147) 92.9%

41-100% 13

The school attendance rate for the sheltered group was significantly lower than for each of the other two groups; H(2)=22.596, p<.001.

Reading & Mathematics

Proficiency in 2012-13Group N % P+D

Reading N % P+DMath

Sheltered 15 19.2% 8 12.0%Doubled Up 15 35.5% 13 27.6%Poor 15 22.5% 10 31.0%All 45 26.1% 31 24.1%

P+D=proficient or distinguished; the relationship between reading/mathematics proficiency and housing status was non-significant.

Conclusions1. School outcomes differed for sheltered children as

compared to the other two groups.2. Sheltered children had greater school mobility and

lower school attendance 2 years later.3. Variability in number of schools attended was greater

for the sheltered group.4. Variability in attendance rates was greater for both

groups of homeless students.5. Reading & math proficiency did not differ for the 3

groups.6. BUT, substantially lower proportions of students in all

3 study groups achieved targeted proficiency as compared to the JCPS student population.

Is There a 4th Point on the Continuum of

Risk?

General population

Poor

Doubled Up

Sheltered

Characteristics: Parents of Children in Sheltered

Group• 28.6% had < HS education• 51.0% single, never married• 28.6% separated/divorced• 12.2% employed in week prior to intake• 22.4% disabled• 30.6% in fair/poor health• 21.3% screened positive for psychological

distress• 16.3% screened positive for PTSD• 18.4% screened positive for alcohol/drug abuse• 12.2% had felony conviction• 67.3% experienced domestic violenceSource of data for sheltered children: Family Options Study – Abt

Associates (Gubits et al., 2015)

Separation of Childrenfrom Parents

• 12.5% of children in the sheltered group had lived apart from parent

• 38.8% of families in the sheltered group had at least one child (study child or sibling) who had lived apart from parent

Source of data for sheltered children: Family Options Study – Abt Associates (Gubits et al., 2015)

Top 5 Barriers to Housing

1. Not enough $ to pay rent2. Couldn’t pay security deposit or first/last

month’s rent3. Poor credit history4. Not employed5. Past eviction

The hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom unit at Jefferson County’s FMR ($737) is $14.17 an hour, yet the mean renter wage is $13.34.Gubits et al., 2015; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2015

Implications: School Responses

• Full implementation of McKinney-Vento protections for homeless children

• Supportive services (e.g., after-school & summer programs, counseling, food programs, etc.)

• Support/training for teachers, school personnel

Cadette, Koenig, Putnam & Wolbring, 2012 Canfield, 2014; Moore, 2013; Rumberger, 2015

Implications: Role of Teachers

• Realign perceptions about homelessness as needed

• Examine classroom environment & culture• Provide supports to increase academic

performance• Use targeted interventions to increase resilience,

executive function• Adapt curriculum• Assist students who transfer during school year• Increase homeless students’/families’ engagement

with peers, teachers, school personnelMasten et al., 2014; Moore, 2013; Rumberger, 2015

Implications: Role of Counselors/

Support Personnel• Meet basic survival needs• Promote safe, secure relationships• Encourage parent engagement• Provide or refer to counseling as

needed• Offer or obtain academic supports,

career planning services

Havlik, Brady & Gavin, 2014

Implications: Prevention• Doubling-up often a precursor to entering shelter

system• Schools best positioned to identify and intervene

with doubled-up families• Promoting movement from shared housing to

permanent housing—preventing movement into homeless shelters—is essential

• Connections between school systems, community-based service providers, faith-based groups, and safety net programs must be reinforced

• One of the best forms of homelessness prevention is affordable or subsidized housing

Kilmer, Cook, Crusto, Strater & Haber, 2012; Miller, 2011; Lubell & Brennan, 2007; Rog & Buckner, 2007; Samuels, Shinn & Buckner, 2010

Limitations• Convenience sample of sheltered children• Quasi-experimental, comparison group design• Results may not generalize to other

populations• Limitations on measures of school-related

outcomes• Not possible to account for effect of co-

occurring risks, parental characteristics, contextual conditions

• Followed for two years only

Next Steps• Replication of study• Interdisciplinary, community

conversations on creating a strong network of community services:o Identify common senses of purposeo Develop structural webs of communicationo Deploy collective resources in strategic

mannerso Evaluate interactional processes and

effectsMiller, 2011

Discussion Questions• Based on your own experience, do the results of this

study “ring true?”• What is your reaction to these findings?• What, if anything, should we do more, do less, or do

differently?• What are the implications for:

o Shelter and housing providers?o Educators?o School systems?o Community-based service providers?o Researchers?

• What other questions should we be asking?

Stacy M. Deck, PhD, MSSWSpalding University

School of Social Worksdeck@spalding.edu

502-873-4477